The horserace coverage and media spin about Clinton's comeback notwithstanding, she actually trails Barack Obama right now where it really counts, in the number of delegates (her 24 to his 25) to the Democratic Convention.
John Hinderaker at Powerline notes the delegate count, numbers that the media rarely discuss when the dust settles on hyped primaries:
New Hampshire was a big win for John McCain and a serious setback for Mitt Romney. But do last night's results mean that Romney is finished? Not at all. In fact, he is the current leader on the Republican side in delegates, as tabulated by CNN.
Turns out on the Republican side, McCain has a meager 10 delegates compared to Huckabee's 18 and Romney's 24.
Given that and the fact that McCain was helped by crossover votes from liberal independents that he cannot count on in closed primary states, the media would do well to note McCain's challenge to run to the right in order to sew up the nomination, rather than take his victory in New Hampshire as a sign that's he's the new front-runner.
Update (11:30 EST): CNN a few minutes ago noted that Clinton leads in overall delegates when the so-called "superdelegates" are factored in. Under Democratic Convention rules, certain elected officials act as so-called superdelegates and can cast their convention votes for whomever they choose. That obviously skews things in favor of the more "establishment" candidate, in this case Sen. Clinton.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Thanks, Ken, for putting some reality into the equation
January 9, 2008 - 12:06 ET by RJAfter Iowa, I posted about this....that delegate counts are the important scorekeeping, not individual state victorys. Attempting to crown kings and queens this early in the game is just more manipulation of public opinion.
What ? Meaningfull numbers, numbers that really count
January 9, 2008 - 12:06 ET by JayTeeWe can't have these vital meaningful numbers being Published......STOP.... Don't let the Populace know the REAL numbers.
Wyoming actually DOES have influence even though the MSM did not mention the Wyoming Primary.
Let's mark the day, the MSM puts up a Graph showing the Convention Delegates elected to date by the Primaries. I've been looking for these numbers, and I think News Busters is the First to Publish. I have NO IDEA what happend in Wyoming....no one was covering a RED state.
I work during the Today
January 9, 2008 - 12:16 ET by taterI work during the Today Show and watch MSNBC every once in a while...there has been NO mention of Wyoming. I didn't even know Wyoming already had a primary.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
The media blackout on
January 9, 2008 - 12:46 ET by Ken ShepherdThe media blackout on Wyoming just goes to show there are just some things the media refuse to pay attention to because they just do. But I believe Wyoming also was only a Republican caucus and Dems have another caucus date, so that may also be a factor.
But the media are creatures of habit.
I see that Romney won
January 9, 2008 - 12:59 ET by taterI see that Romney won Wyoming...and the MSM keeps telling us this guy is all but dead in the water. Granted I don't know how much weight Wyoming plays in the big picture but Romney has won 'a' state.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
Wyoming results
January 9, 2008 - 15:11 ET by HermanoI saww the Wyoming results on CNN.com on Saturday. USAToday also had them on their website. They may not be transmitting this information over the air, but they do seem to be at least allowing access to the information. That being said, there was no runup to the information or any great analysis of the results, either.
Will Mich. be covered ?
January 9, 2008 - 17:14 ET by JayTeeSince Michigan does not count for Democrats, no delegates allowed to Convention because they moved their primary date.... WILL THE MSM Cover the Mich. Votes like they covered Wyoming ? (I.E. not at all)
Feb 6th
January 9, 2008 - 12:48 ET by SouthJersey1953On February 6th, the MSM will post the delegate count for the first time (unless Hellary is still trailing, then thye will wait longer).
It's not Right vs. Left; it is Right vs. Wrong
This is very true. Most
January 9, 2008 - 12:08 ET by bassndudeThis is very true. Most folks focus on the primary vote from a few states, not even thinking of the real count. The delegates. All that matters is the delegate count at the end, and the night is still young. Febuary 5th will be the telling time. It will tell all.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
This is of passing interest
January 9, 2008 - 12:39 ET by Warner Todd HustonThis is of passing interest and it brings up an amusing scenario that works to show how the left is filled with hypocrisy. Remember in 2000 when the left had ginned itself into a frenzy that Al Gore barely won the majority of the popular vote, yet lost because we don't elect a president by popular vote? Since George Bush won the most Electoral College votes, and since that is how we really elect a president, Bush won. Now, recall how the left went mad that that Gore lost yet he got the popular vote?
So, here is the funny thing. Obama won more delegates in New Hampshire than the popular vote winer, Hillary Clinton. Check out the CNN delegate tote board and you'll see that Hillary only ended up with 11 delegates while Obama got 12.
And now the question: Where are the leftists screaming that the woman who won the popular vote didn't get the most delegates?
Answer: Because she has so many more delegates than the rest of the field combined, it doesn't matter that Obama got more delegates than she in New Hampshire.
Result: the left doesn't care about "fairness" and "democracy," they only care about winning. If they can USE arguments of "fairness" and "democracy" to further their case, they will do so. If it doesn't affect their case, they will ignore the issue.
WTH ...That's amazing
January 9, 2008 - 14:25 ET by JayTeeMore elected delegates is THE ONLY number Obama and Hillary care about......... why not the MSM ?
Excellant observation/catch ..... but hey, that's how the Democrats elect a Nominee for Pres., Delegates and not the Popular vote.
...but hey, that's how the
January 9, 2008 - 14:48 ET by Warner Todd HustonBut, but, but I thought that Democrats were all about democracy and stuff? Ya mean they ain't?
MSM getting desperate...
January 9, 2008 - 12:47 ET by orlandocajunThe MSM is giddy with McCain winning New Hampshire. If Hillary or Obama don't win the General Election, McCain is the next best liberal. Too bad for them that's probably the only win he's going to get. He may not even carry Arizona.
When it gets to the big states, I'm expecting Rudy or Mitt to be way out front though I'd rather that it be Thompson. The MSM is scared to death of him and have been doing their best to keep him in the shadows of coverage.
Dewey Defeats Truman
January 9, 2008 - 13:03 ET by TjexciteI am betting this will happen again with Clinton holding the paper Obamb Beats Clinton After Clinton wins. All to be first to report and it does not matter it is important or right.
The Big Picture
January 9, 2008 - 15:21 ET by PawpawNAnd for real electoral votes-Iowa/7; New Hampshire/4; Wyoming/3. Wow, looks like it's all over!!
In case you dont know.
January 9, 2008 - 17:42 ET by FowlerK9In case you dont know. Hunter won 1 delegate in WY. That means currently he has more than rudy or ron paul. Yet he's still not invited to the debate on Thursday while the others are. Fair and balenced?